The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by nigelc Aren't Holy books written by men?

What's your point? In detail please.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Yes, I am the one responsible for my nearly life taking accident. But that "nearly" word starts "doubts".

(IMO) When something unexplainable happens, it doesn't mean a god is responsible.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul I couldn't find any apparent reasons for my survival.

IMO, "you got lucky" pretty much explains it.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul In a master-slave kind of relation, God (assuming he exists and is a master) is not supposed to explain "why" and "how", for the obvious reasons.

Well, in this case there's no problem in trying to destroy/banish it, right?

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Who is forcing what?

Religion is inherited from parents. I still remember a christian that tried to brainwash me when I was a kid. (IMO) people should decide for themselves when they grow up.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul I am not here for PROVING God or proving that something originates from God. I wrote all my statements above [ASSUMING] God exists. Again, I repeat religion is all about beliefs and a mental state.

Even if a god exists, why do you think that a feeling of danger can only originate directly from the god? God is meant to be a highest instance in entire universe, after all.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul I have no clue why you keep on repeating in many threads in /General, that your opinion is not going to change?

It means that arguing with me about this particular subject will be completely pointless, so somebody won't spend next 3 hours writing wall of text as a reply.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul If there is no God then there is no question of a book being holy.

If a god can die, then there can be a holy book without a god.

Originally Posted by SigTerm It means that arguing with me about this particular subject will be completely pointless, so somebody won't spend next 3 hours writing wall of text as a reply.

This is a very arrogant reply. If you already know that talking to you is pointless,
then why do you quote out people's post? Anyway, I have zero interest in talking to
arrogant people.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul This is a very arrogant reply.

(o_O)' ??? Now, where did THAT come from? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul If you already know that talking to you is pointless, then why do you quote out people's post?

You should read more carefully. It means that arguing about this particular subject (indicated by "opinion that won't change") will be pointless. "Opinion won't change" is a warning. If you want to waste your time, you can ignore it.
And if you think my behavior is unacceptable, use "report" button.

Originally Posted by SigTerm In my opinion, when you know that you can rely only on yourself, nobody else is going to help you, and that you're the only person responsible for consequences of your decisions, you become stronger. Religious people have plenty of ways to say "devil made me do it" or get a false hope from their faith. Anyway, this is my opinion based on my life experience. It is very unlikely to change.

I find this exchange rather strange. You're arguing the utility of belief vs. non-belief, but that dances around the fundamental question...is it true? Personally, even if you could prove to me that religion was unequivocally a positive force in the world, it wouldn't matter to me at all. The only question I'm interested in is the truth of the claims. (Clearly I'm not a utilitarian in my moral reasoning. Speaking of moral reasoning, @Anisha Kaul, you don't need a divine book to have thought out the hows and whys of behavior and indeed many people read the Bible or other holy writ and come to very bad moral decisions. Just as clearly many atheists are very good people.)

Originally Posted by reed9 @Anisha Kaul, you don't need a divine book to have thought out the hows and whys of behavior

This has been explained in my replies to sycamorex.
Btw, I never said that it is "compulsory" to read the
holy book.

Originally Posted by reed9 and indeed many people read the Bible or other holy writ and come to very bad moral decisions.

That is a generic statement. Not all holy books have
nonsense written in them, and even if you find something
unprovable e.g. the after life, heaven, and hells etc.,
you can chose to filter what you read.
I said previously, that "blindly" following any book,
holy or not, is not helpful.

Originally Posted by reed9 I find this exchange rather strange. You're arguing the utility of belief vs. non-belief, but that dances around the fundamental question...is it true?

People already spent few years discussing "fundamental question" in this thread, so what's the problem with discussing utility for a while? (although the topic of utility have been already exhausted)

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Perhaps you forgot that we were talking about holy books assuming the God exists. Holy books and God go hand in hand. If there is no God then there is no question of a book being holy.

See, I've got a problem here because I really don't assume that. I treat 'holy books' as books written by man that are
supposed to guide you and even as that the Bible (that's the only 'holy book' that I personally read) would probably be
one of the last books that I'd reach for in search of moral guidance. It's full of contradictions/mindless violence, stories
that teach anything but moral behaviour. Obviously, it's also got its good parts, but imagine the following situation:
You've got an English grammar book which tells you how to use English. (holy books are supposed to show you how to live).
Say you know that this grammar book contains a certain number of inconsistencies and mistakes. Would you ever spend a minute analysing
that book to pick up the mistakes and focus on 'good parts'? No, I'd think such a rule book is completely useless as any kind of guidance.
If you have to sieve through its pages applying YOUR (linguistic/moral) judgement in search of good parts, than, well, such a book would have no value for me whatsoever.
I am sure that there are hundreds of books written by non-divine authors (ie. humans) that offer better guidance on moral/philosophical issues than so-called 'holy books'. They may lack the beauty/literary value of some 'holy books' but they are honest, coherent and offer invaluable insight on how to live as an individual in a society without false promises and 'ugly parts.'

just my 2dinars

Originally Posted by sycamorex See, I've got a problem here because I really don't assume that.

Perhaps it means you have not followed the thread thoroughly.
Assumption about the God's existence started with sigterm asking
ShaanAli something like "even if we assume that God exists,
how will you know whether he's lying or not", to which I
responded, assuming God exists.

If we take out the assumption of God's existence, then the discussion
won't make sense, since a holy book, is called holy only because it is
said to have a connection with God, otherwise we would be calling
it a book written by an <author name>, and all these lengthy talks
wouldn't have taken place.

Originally Posted by sycamorex ...but imagine the following situation: You've got an English grammar book which tells you how to use English. (holy books are supposed to show you how to live). Say you know that this grammar book contains a certain number of inconsistencies and mistakes. Would you ever spend a minute analysing that book to pick up the mistakes and focus on 'good parts'? No, I'd think such a rule book is completely useless as any kind of guidance.

To be honest and with NO intentions of advertising my religion,
I would state again, that I have read complete Ramayana
(epic depicting life of Lord Ram),and partial Bhagwad Gita (which
constitutes of questions of the human, and Lord Krishna giving answers),
I haven't found anything nonsensical/contradictions there, YET.

I said before too, if I find God talking nonsense there, I won't
be referring to that book again.

When I mentioned filtering what you read, I was in a way referring
to concepts like heaven/hell/lifeAfterDeath, and mythological stories.

birdie num num
birdie num num
all nonsense.

Originally Posted by SigTerm People already spent few years discussing "fundamental question" in this thread, so what's the problem with discussing utility for a while? (although the topic of utility have been already exhausted)

As a thought experiment, no problem. As an argument for or against religion, I think it's problematic, since I reject the notion that respect for religion should be based on its utility or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul That is a generic statement. Not all holy books have nonsense written in them, and even if you find something unprovable e.g. the after life, heaven, and hells etc., you can chose to filter what you read. I said previously, that "blindly" following any book, holy or not, is not helpful.

Yes, that is definitely a generic statement. The point of which is that holy books have no special claim to knowledge, moral or otherwise. Since it is required to filter out the nonsense, clearly your criteria and standard is coming from outside the religious tradition. Which is all I meant to say. As Mark Twain said, "We get our morals from books. I didn't get mine from books, but I know that morals do come from books- theoretically at least."

To be honest and with NO intentions of advertising my religion, I would state again, that I have read complete Ramayana (epic depicting life of Lord Ram),and partial Bhagwad Gita (which constitutes of questions of the human, and Lord Krishna giving answers), I haven't found anything nonsensical/contradictions there, YET. I said before too, if I find God talking nonsense there, I won't be referring to that book again.

What would qualify as nonsense? I mean, Sita being abducted by a Demon King is nonsense if taken literally, right? More metaphorically, Rama's moral example of adhering to dharma is questionable at best, especially given that the concept of dharma was a tool used to enforce a pretty horrific caste system, right?

Sometime in the 17th Century (I think), a Bible was published with the commandment: Thou shalt commit adultery.

Originally Posted by brianL Sometime in the 17th Century (I think), a Bible was published with the commandment: Thou shalt commit adultery.

Yup, The Wicked Bible of 1631.

Originally Posted by reed9 As a thought experiment, no problem. As an argument for or against religion, I think it's problematic, since I reject the notion that respect for religion should be based on its utility or lack thereof.

My original argument was that I personally would not accept religion that treats humans as god's slaves AND that in my opinion even if deity really exists it might make sense to banish/destroy it in certain circumstances. It isn't exactly an argument against religion in general, but a personal disagreement with certain elements that are present in some religions.

Originally Posted by reed9 What would qualify as nonsense? I mean, Sita being abducted by a Demon King is nonsense if taken literally, right?

First you cut off my statements in context, then you ask me questions?
Didn't you read the last statement which talked about avoiding (if you like)
the mythological stories?

If you are interested in bed-time stories, then you can very well use
Ramayana to lull the babies to sleep.
On the other hand one can even try to learn from the life of Lord Ram,
that how he was a dutiful son, husband, king, and man, Bharat as a dutiful
brother etc. etc.

Originally Posted by reed9 Rama's moral example of adhering to dharma is questionable at best, especially given that the concept of dharma was a tool used to enforce a pretty horrific caste system, right?

I have no clue about "Manuscripti". Haven't read/heard it and don't know
anything about it.
Though I still remember from Ramayana that Lord Ram ate the impure fruit
by the hands of a schedule caste woman Shabri (during his exile),
and also I remember that Lord Krishna's girlfriend Radha, was a schedule
caste woman and his best friend Sudama, was schedule caste too, which
when in need of money turned to his friend, and Lord Krishna in return,
jumped off his throne to welcome him and washed his feet with his hands,
signaling welcome.

For the nth time I would repeat, I haven't read everything everywhere,
if and when I find "God" talking nonsense, then ...